On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 04:21:31PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > All the functionality that the inode_lock protected has now been > wrapped up in new independent locks and/or functionality. Hence the > inode_lock does not serve a purpose any longer and hence can now be > removed. > > Based on work originally done by Nick Piggin. Sorry about being offline for so long. I had some work finishing with SUSE and then took some vacation without much net access for several weeks :P Unfortunate timing that everybody is suddenly interested in the scalability work :) I didn't want to dump a lot of patches just before I went and not be able to support them if they were merged / respond to review in a timely way. But I still want to maintain my vfs-scale stack. I'm glad to see lots of interest in it now. So I will like criticism of that and hopefully fold improvements back. The problem I guess with taking the patches and reworking them a bit is just that I have lost a bit of context of what you're doing, and also it loses it's verification within the entire series (ie. the end goal of doing store free path walking relies a bit on RCU inode for example), and I've done a lot of microbenchmarking. I don't see any radical changes that you've done yet, although it's hard to tell exactly. I'm not sure about trylocking. I don't think it is an unmaintainable mess in inode, because it is confined to the core inode (fs/inode, fs/fs-writeback.c etc), and not visible to outside. But let me get back up to speed and see what you've done here. I might need a little more time than 2.6.37! But I'll try my best. I don't think the patchset has suddenly become vastly more urgent in the past month, so I think my approach of having it get a lot of testing and go in Al's vfs tree for a while is best. Thanks, Nick -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html